Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

 

The scientific journal Informatics. Culture. Technology applies a double-blind peer review model to ensure fairness, impartiality, and compliance with high academic standards. In this model, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the entire evaluation process.

 

The journal uses a double-blind review system. All materials and correspondence between the editorial board and reviewers are confidential.

 

Manuscript Submission

 

 

Authors submit their manuscript through the official journal system. To preserve anonymity, all identifying information (name, affiliation, acknowledgements) must be removed from the manuscript.

 

Initial Editorial Screening

 

The editorial board checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal’s requirements, including formatting, relevance to the journal’s scope, and originality using plagiarism detection software.

 

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic standards may be rejected at the initial stage.

 

Appointment of Reviewers

 

The editor appoints at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

 

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication experience in the relevant subject area, absence of conflicts of interest, and affiliation with different institutions in order to ensure impartiality.

 

Before appointment, each potential reviewer confirms that they have no personal, financial, or academic relationships with the authors that could affect the objectivity of the review.

 

Reviewer Evaluation

 

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following criteria: scientific rigor and methodology; originality and contribution to the field; clarity of presentation and structure; accuracy and relevance of the bibliography, etc.

 

Reviewers should also pay attention to compliance with ethical standards, correctness of data processing, and adherence to the open data policy.

 

Based on the evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following decisions: accept without changes, accept after minor revisions, accept after major revisions, or reject the article.

 

To document the results, reviewers use a standardized report form containing the conclusion, justification, and recommendations.

 

The report template is available on the journal website (see details).

 

Timeframes

 

The average time for initial manuscript screening is 10 working days, after which authors are informed whether the manuscript is sent for review or rejected.

 

Reviewers are usually given 2 weeks to prepare their review. In case of delay, the editorial board may appoint an additional reviewer or extend the deadline.

 

The overall period from submission to acceptance or rejection of the article usually does not exceed 1.5 months, which corresponds to the journal’s average time to publication.

 

Author Revisions

 

If revisions are required, authors receive anonymous comments together with a deadline for submitting the revised version.

 

Authors must prepare a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments and upload the revised article together with the completed response form.

 

Final Editorial Decision

 

After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor checks whether all comments have been addressed. If necessary, the article may be sent for an additional round of review.

 

The final decision (acceptance, re-review, or rejection) is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board. The decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the article’s relevance to the journal’s scope, the quality of revisions made, and compliance with ethical standards.

 

The decision is communicated to the authors together with a reasoned comment.

 

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

 

All information obtained during the peer review process is confidential and may not be disclosed to third parties without permission from the editorial board.

 

Reviewers must inform the editorial board of any possible conflicts of interest in order to avoid bias.

 

Appeal

 

If authors disagree with the editorial decision, they may submit an appeal providing justification and supporting documents. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed panel, whose decision is final.